This is an open letter to NaClHv, in partial response to some things said in recent posts, though not specifically to any one of them. I invite a response, either here or on his own blog; if the latter, I will link to the post from here, for the benefit of future readers.
You've said that observations of nature are as trustworthy as Scripture, and should be taken equally as demonstrations of God's character. Great! I absolutely agree with you. For instance, if you shove a stick in the ground at noon on the summer solstice, and look at the angle the sun's shadow makes, you can prove that the earth is round - and even calculate its radius, with a fair degree of accuracy. We can take that as good solid fact, and interpret Scripture in the light of it. That's science. So far, so good.
But that validity applies only to the raw facts - the purest observations. The raw initial data is what's infallible. Every interpretation based on that data is as fallible as the person who makes it - and more importantly, reflects the biases of the person who makes it, and we're all biased. When a big corporation commissions a scientific study to prove that Brand X Toothpaste produces whiter teeth and healthier gums than all its competitors, there'll be some raw data somewhere that's still perfectly correct, and then some massive interpretational bias (at least, I've yet to see any toothpaste ad that isn't subject to that). We know that the conclusion is heavily influenced by the funding, when it's that blatant. Do we acknowledge that, even when people are striving for true science, their initial preconceptions will affect their published conclusions?
If we do, then every piece of scientific consensus must be subject to review. Scientific consensus, especially today, generally means anti-Christian biases. If someone sets out to prove that God doesn't exist, and ends up concluding that everything happens by itself without any external influence, can we truly trust that declaration? No, because we know it's false - it contradicts the Bible. What if it's not quite so blatantly obvious? It's just as unreliable - it's still someone's interpretation of the facts.
So I ask you: Why are you going to great lengths to incorporate the popular anti-Christian view that we're descended from monkeys? There is no Scriptural support for this; there is no justification from the Word of God that suggests that this theory should be accepted. So what's the hard fact that you're incorporating? Where is the evidence that death occurred prior to Adam? (Romans 5 suggests that it didn't.)
I'm aware that there are messy convolutions in my own interpretation of Scripture, particularly the account of Creation. Convolutions are not, in themselves, fundamentally bad, but they're the equivalent of code smell in software - suggestive while not conclusive. The simpler solutions are the better ones, and I would love to find a pure, beautiful, clean theory, that explains everything perfectly. But until we have one, we have to accept a certain messiness. I hold to the Dr Humphreys theory that the "days" of Genesis 1 are perfectly literal, as observed from here on Earth's surface (we know that time is affected by gravity, so time and location must be bound up together, and any literal acceptance of those days must therefore stipulate an observer's location); that requires the assumption of an event horizon, crossing the observer probably during the fourth day of Creation. In contrast, your theory requires the assumption of two different types of person, genetically and visually identical, one of them bearing the image of God and the other not; it requires that there be people with whom the descendants of Adam and Eve interacted, yet who were not fully people, yet who were... and somehow, there has to be a boundary on the laws in Lev 18, which make it very clear that we're not supposed to interact in certain ways with non-humans. Where's the edge of non-humans, if it's not the sons of Adam and daughters of Eve?
But fundamentally, the question is: What facts are we using in forming our interpretations? Scripture is infallible. Raw observation of nature is infallible. Everything else isn't. If you can't duplicate my research yourself, you can't take my conclusions as perfect science - they're science filtered through me. If you were unable to read the Bible, you'd have to have someone else read it to you; would you allow your views of God to be based on an edited reading... by someone who openly hates God? And would you then go to great lengths to incorporate that into your world-view?
Then why accept it with science?